Laserfiche WebLink
Colowyo Response - PR3 adequacy No. 2 <br />May 6, 2011 <br />CCC responded to the division's preliminary adequacy concerns on March 28, 2011. The Division has <br />reviewed CCC responses received March 28, 2011 and has the following adequacy concerns. Some <br />adequacy items in this secondary review are a result of responses received with the March 28, 2011 <br />submittal. Any additional adequacy comments regarding geotechnical engineering may be sent to you <br />in a separate adequacy review letter. <br />2.03.6 - General Requirements <br />On Rule 2 page 2, CCC makes the statement that "unleased and unassigned federal coal for <br />Little Collom X pit area is pending". Since submitting the application, CCC personnel have <br />informed the Division that the permittee will not be acquiring this unleased coal. Rule <br />2.03.6(1) does not allow the Division to permit a mine plan the operator has not obtained the <br />right of entry. Please revise this paragraph to remove this statement. <br />CCC has removed the statement regarding unleased Federal Coal on Rule 2, page 2. This <br />response is acceptable. <br />Rule 2.04.3 - General Requirements: Site Description and Land Use Information <br />1. The new permit boundary of the Collom Expansion Area encompasses 8,210 acres of the <br />existing Morgan Creek Ranching for Wildlife Area. This area was not discussed within the <br />context of site description or as a land use. Please provide a description of this area along with <br />a brief history, its mission, ownership, and management practices. (Rule 2.04.3(1)) BFB <br />CCC included a discussion regarding Morgan Creek Ranch on Rule 2, pages 18-19. This <br />response addresses the Division's concern. <br />2. A description of the local topography was not included in the land description. Please include a <br />description of the local topography within the proposed disturbance area. (Rule 2.04.3(2)(b)(i)) <br />CCC appropriately responded to this item. This item is resolved. <br />3. It was not stated in the text whether the Collom expansion area has a mining history. Please <br />include a statement indicating any mining history and include the details requested in Rule <br />2.04.3(3)(a-f) if there is a history of mining in the proposed disturbance area. BFB <br />CCC comments in the response letter, dated March 25, 2011, that there has been no historic <br />mining other than CCC's own exploration. However, it was not stated in the permit text <br />whether the Collom expansion area has had a mining history. In CCC's response in the first <br />adequacy review, it stated that "there has been no organized mining activity in the Collom <br />expansion area in recent history beyond exploratory drilling activities." Please include this <br />statement in the permit text which will meet the requirements of Rule 2.04.3(3)(a-f). <br />Colowyo 's Response: